Beginning July 1, 2016, California will become the third state in the United States that will no longer accept religious beliefs as grounds for exemption from vaccines for schoolchildren. A measure this drastic has sparked understandable controversy, but for a beneficial tradeoff: herd immunization.

As drafters and supporters of the bill have stressed, the purpose behind this legislation is not meant to be a punishment for those whose religious beliefs stand against vaccination, nor a denial of personal choice; it is for public safety.

The diseases that can be prevented by vaccinations are not run-of-the-mill common colds - they can kill. The World Health Organization estimated 400 deaths daily in 2013 from measles. Strains of bacterial meningitis, for which vaccines are available and recommended, kill 10% of those infected with it, and survivors run the risk of irreversible brain damage, or at the very least, temporary loss of function, depression, and burdening medical and financial costs.

The long list of pro-vaccination arguments and supporting data, however, is a separate issue from that of the mandated vaccination for schoolchildren argument.

Yes, I believe that any parent should have the right to choose what they think is best for their family, whether that be vaccination or not. Taking away this right and forcibly injecting vaccines into every child in California would be unconstitutional. But the new law is not doing this - it is saying there is now a tradeoff if you choose not to vaccinate your child. Don’t believe in vaccinations? That is fine, and that is your choice by right. In this case, you may provide your child with alternative schooling. However, your choice should not come at the expense of other children, who do not have a choice.

Who are these children? They are the ones who physically cannot receive vaccinations. Some of these children have fatal allergies to a component of the vaccine, and would risk their lives receiving it. Others have suppressed immune systems, caused by a plethora of factors ranging from receiving chemotherapy to a congenital immune system dysfunction. These children now rely on herd immunity, a community-wide collaboration, to protect themselves from these deadly diseases.

As denoted by the name, herd immunity surrounds the few that cannot be vaccinated with a barrier that prevents diseases from reaching these children. The more people in this barrier who are vaccinated, the lower the chances of diseases being transmitted to those who are unvaccinated. This concept only works if the number of unvaccinated individuals remains at the bare minimum, with every able individual joining this metaphorical barrier. Every person in the surrounding “herd” who is not vaccinated pokes a hole for one of these diseases to potentially pass through and affect those who are unvaccinated. This concept presents a complicated debate of right to personal choice versus moral and social responsibility.

With public health as the priority, the question became: how best to protect those who cannot physically receive vaccinations? The answer was extreme, but so are the consequences to these preventable diseases. The question being answered by the law is: who should be attending public schools, a breeding ground for many illnesses? The children choosing not to be vaccinated, or the children with no choice? Yes, the law is drastic and imperfect, but as is the case when choosing between the lesser of two evils. Lawmakers decided it was more fair to protect the safety of the unhealthy children rather than the convenience of the healthy ones.

Again, this law is not mandating vaccines for every child, only mandating vaccines for a child who wishes to attend a public school. It is also not taking away the right to education for those who still opt out of vaccinations. Students can still enroll in private schools that do not require vaccines, be homeschooled by their parents or tutors, or attend their public school via an independent study program. Families in this situation will not be sent up the creek without a paddle; they will have choices and support for their child’s education. It may be inconvenient for these families, but think of the life-threatening alternative.

With that said, I believe the government should take greater steps to lift the burden this law will create for families who will no longer be able to send their child down the street to school. Vaccinations should be provided for free, or at very little cost, to eliminate a financial burden for families. Funds should be allocated to vaccine research and development to lower the incidences of rare, though still occurring, vaccine injuries. Unwanted side effects, complications, or trauma from receiving a vaccine should be met with full reimbursement of medical costs for the child, plus cost of emotional damages. Vaccine court should refocus from prioritizing the pharmaceutical companies behind the vaccines, to the individuals and their families suffering from receiving a vaccine from a “hot lot," or a batch of vaccines that harm recipients. Health and well-being of the greater public should always be proritized.

If a family still wishes to refrain from vaccinating their children, the schools should be in full cooperation to still give this child the best education they can receive. Independent study programs should be carefully monitored to ensure the child is advancing along with their classmates. Public programs should be established for support and pooling of resources to help parents who decide to homeschool. If a parent has to leave work to homeschool their child, the government should be prepared to help with the financial burden this surely will carry, since this law should not be a punishment, but rather a precaution.

As far as the social development aspect of attending a public school with other kids, extracurriculars independent of public schools should be established for all children to participate in, regardless of vaccine status. Parks, museums, restaurants, etc. that are not mandatory in attendance for all children should remain non-discriminatory against a child who is not vaccinated to ensure equal socialization opportunities.

Unfortunately, most of these measures are still premature or non-existent. However, I do not count them as unreasonable. Now that the government has made this movement toward public health, it should widen its focus to assist with the strain it may place on families.

This is not an idea limited to California; movements should be made across the nation. If universal vaccination laws do not exist or are insufficient in your state, write your representative or a news team, team up with the other side of the debate on these issues, and push to make it happen. It matters.